Despite the fact that Trump has transformed the Republican Party into the proto-Fascist MAGA Party, not all Republicans are on board with all of his policies. On specific issues, we can seize the opportunity to form some surprising alliances. For example:
Despite the fact that Trump has transformed the Republican Party into the proto-Fascist MAGA Party, not all Republicans are on board with all of his policies. On specific issues, we can seize the opportunity to form some surprising alliances. For example:
Rand Paul (yes, him!) is deeply skeptical of Trump’s costly border and deportation plans. Importantly, Senator Paul can do something about it; he will chair the Senate committee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security. Because the border & deportation is Trump’s Priority No.1 for early 2025, Democrats can work with Senator Rand Paul to block, modify or slow-walk implementation of Trump’s inhumane policies. Destroying this keystone will politically weaken him, while strengthening us in other upcoming battles.
This article highlights Rand Paul’s views and is well worth reading.
Honestly, from a nakedly political angle and NOT from a humanitarian one, I hope the GOP gives Trump everything he wants re: the border/deportations. Here is why:
-Incoming Presidents always have a fair amount of political capital their first 100 days.
-I think if Trump is serious about what he wants to do, his political capital is depleted quickly, due to both a) Ensuing economic contraction and inflation that mass deportations will result in and b) The horrific images that will flood the news of families getting torn apart and children screaming for their moms/dads as ICE drags them away to the paddy wagon.
-Trump will be therefore weakened and wounded early and the Senate in particular would have the grounds to provide more robust pushback for his other wacky policy proposals (which cumulatively would negatively impact even more people)
-Border/deportations was by far the number #1 issue his campaign ran on; he was basically a resurrected Lewis Charles Levin. Speaking from a democratic standpoint, deportations is what Americans voted for-let them see the consequences of their actions.
100%, absolutely most let them "touch the hot stove" here. Worst thing Dems can do is gum up the works, give Trumpers the ability to back away from their absurd "promises" and effectively blame the powerless libs for it.
Because voters give us ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT for being the adults in the room.
I get the intent here but I disagree on the political angle.
Political capital is ultimately finite. If it takes half a year to implement their core agenda that's a lot more politically damaging to them than if it takes a month.
I've mentioned in the past that a lot of the damage of doing things when in power is simply that things change as a consequence. I maintain that this is the biggest damage. But a significant, if smaller, cost is wrangling the party on board with any complex legislation. If Obamacare was brought up and passed in a single month it would have hurt us a lot less at the ballot box: that we spent months and months fighting over it (1) kept it in the news, leading to voters constantly being reminded about what was being done, and (2) brought the ideological ends of the party into direct conflict with each other.
We should absolutely force republicans to go through the same process. If they are 100% hellbent on deportations or ending the EPA or what have you, they will make it happen... eventually. And that eventually is important. Force them to fight for it, force them to focus only on their most damaging and least popular agenda items because they don't have time to move on to the more popular (or less unpopular, as it might be) items on the agenda. Force the less extremist republicans to come into conflict with the more extremist republicans. Make it so the news is constantly covering their horribly unpopular agenda for six months straight because they need to maneuver so many little details to avoid losing three votes in the house while fitting it within the rules of reconciliation. Force them to change the rules on filibusters.
Agendas don't become controversial automatically. They need to be opposed, they need to be fought, they need to be something that the public hears about constantly for months and start viewing in a critical angle regardless of their ideology.
This is especially important for democrats. One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can. The absolute worst thing we could do is avoid fighting to our fullest ability.
I'd concur if the issue was more broady amalagous and unpopular, like healthcare or gutting environmental/safety/labor regs. But what makes immigration different is the GOP position IS NOT unpopular with the electorate. So having it be in the news for the next 6 months when the GOP could be all John Wayne on the border if not for those bleeding heart Democrats, doesn't hurt the GOP . . it hurts Democrats.
"Repeal and replace" was popular (or at least near neutral) until republicans started to try and enact it, until it was in the news for months and months and more people had to mentally digest the actual consequences of it.
Trump also didn't make ACA repeal a central part of his 2016 campaign; it was part of his campaign plank but there was no specific plan outlined. Meanwhile he's been saying clearly that once in office he will initiate mass deportations and enact massive tariffs.
That Obamacare became more popular after Trump's election is kind of the point... it was something where we fought. Democrats didn't come together and conclude that ACA repeal would be so disastrous that republicans would eat shit for it and that we should let them do so. No, we stymied them every step of the way. The end result being great for us: republicans took the damage of unpopular policy and they failed to implement the policy at the same time. Which, even if you don't give a shit on humanitarian grounds, is still a great political win for us — it saved us the political costs of going through the process to pass it back into law, or something similar to it!
"One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can."
President Biden could and should have used the bully pulpit to name and shame the corporations that obscenely increased their profit margins during the pandemic, and in its aftermath.
And I do think it would have benefited Kamala Harris to more clearly and specifically attack corporate greedflation. That includes highlighting the difference in the rate increases of CEO wages & benefits and that of ordinary workers.
Also, just look at the pent-up rage that was released and aimed at insurance companies in the aftermath of the killing of that CEO. That rage could have been tapped during the presidential campaign!
This can be extended out to a broader point, I think.
It's hard to deny that we're in a populist era for politics, one that dems at the top are not leaning into sufficiently. Republicans are working with it by painting the weak and powerless as voters' enemies, punching down to get the electorate on board with them.
We have a wide opening to punch up, to attack the rich and the powerful, and paint them as our foil. We should take it and use it.
I would be careful what you wish for with deportations. The most likely scenario is that Trump proceeds with a controlled number of deportations, declares victory, and then proclaims the problem is solved. If he does, the economic fallout will be minimal and the deportations will be incredibly popular. Unless and until real hardships are felt by consumers because of deportations, Trump will be on the right side of popular opinion by proceeding with them.
We need to be a Greek chorus on this. Point out this is X-thousand out of Y-million, and fuel their own coalition's inherent tensions.
Don't let them avoid copping to their lies, no matter how blatantly obvious they are to anyone with their eyes open.
I honestly don't know what else to do. Just in no way repeating the "resistance" posture from 2017. That just f-cked us over even worse, in the medium-to-long term.
Well that's the whole question at the end of the day-does Trump believe in this issue strongly enough to go the Stephen Miller/Bannon route, or does he do basically a slightly harsher repeat of his prior Administration policy and not stick up the middle finger at the Business Roundtable groups that he both loathes and wishes he was a part of?
IMO tariffs are likelier to harm consumers more quickly and obviously than deportations, and it feels (to me at least) like protectionism bordering on mercantilism is the one thing Trump actually truly in his bones believes in policy wise
It's also something we have a harder time stopping as I understand things. There's more leeway for the executive to impose tariffs regardless of congress' input. Deportations and other matters generally at least require funding apportionment even when the executive branch generally can do them unilaterally.
I don’t have a problem with tariffs depending on the facts and if they’re done for economic reasons. Democrats worshipping at the altar of “free trade”/protecting capital over labor is a big reason why the party has slipped in the Midwest.
Inflation was the number #1 issue this year, and tariffs supercharge that while not providing any corresponding surge for domestic mx. The Biden Administration did more to onshore U.S. manufacturing than any presidency since WWII and voters showed they DGAF.
Voters DGAF because they were largely ignorant. Why were they ignorant? Because Team Biden failed to tout their accomplishments as loudly as Trump would have done – and, sadly, not even as loudly as Trump and the right-wing ecosphere spouted their lies and constant negativity.
You might argue that the news media should have done its job regardless but, sadly, that is not the infotainment reality we live in.
That would be the smart thing for him to do. Ironically if he were to do this the biggest problem he would have is pushback from his base that really believes that all undocumented immigrants should be deported, along with their children and they are willing to suffer economic pain to get this.
He could simply bring deportation figures back up to Obama levels and pass the border act he killed and he’d already be more hawkish than in his first term
SEEK BIPARTISAN OBSTRUCTION OF TRUMP’s AGENDA
Despite the fact that Trump has transformed the Republican Party into the proto-Fascist MAGA Party, not all Republicans are on board with all of his policies. On specific issues, we can seize the opportunity to form some surprising alliances. For example:
Rand Paul (yes, him!) is deeply skeptical of Trump’s costly border and deportation plans. Importantly, Senator Paul can do something about it; he will chair the Senate committee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security. Because the border & deportation is Trump’s Priority No.1 for early 2025, Democrats can work with Senator Rand Paul to block, modify or slow-walk implementation of Trump’s inhumane policies. Destroying this keystone will politically weaken him, while strengthening us in other upcoming battles.
This article highlights Rand Paul’s views and is well worth reading.
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/13/rand-paul-trump-thune-border-immigration
Honestly, from a nakedly political angle and NOT from a humanitarian one, I hope the GOP gives Trump everything he wants re: the border/deportations. Here is why:
-Incoming Presidents always have a fair amount of political capital their first 100 days.
-I think if Trump is serious about what he wants to do, his political capital is depleted quickly, due to both a) Ensuing economic contraction and inflation that mass deportations will result in and b) The horrific images that will flood the news of families getting torn apart and children screaming for their moms/dads as ICE drags them away to the paddy wagon.
-Trump will be therefore weakened and wounded early and the Senate in particular would have the grounds to provide more robust pushback for his other wacky policy proposals (which cumulatively would negatively impact even more people)
-Border/deportations was by far the number #1 issue his campaign ran on; he was basically a resurrected Lewis Charles Levin. Speaking from a democratic standpoint, deportations is what Americans voted for-let them see the consequences of their actions.
100%, absolutely most let them "touch the hot stove" here. Worst thing Dems can do is gum up the works, give Trumpers the ability to back away from their absurd "promises" and effectively blame the powerless libs for it.
Because voters give us ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIT for being the adults in the room.
I get the intent here but I disagree on the political angle.
Political capital is ultimately finite. If it takes half a year to implement their core agenda that's a lot more politically damaging to them than if it takes a month.
I've mentioned in the past that a lot of the damage of doing things when in power is simply that things change as a consequence. I maintain that this is the biggest damage. But a significant, if smaller, cost is wrangling the party on board with any complex legislation. If Obamacare was brought up and passed in a single month it would have hurt us a lot less at the ballot box: that we spent months and months fighting over it (1) kept it in the news, leading to voters constantly being reminded about what was being done, and (2) brought the ideological ends of the party into direct conflict with each other.
We should absolutely force republicans to go through the same process. If they are 100% hellbent on deportations or ending the EPA or what have you, they will make it happen... eventually. And that eventually is important. Force them to fight for it, force them to focus only on their most damaging and least popular agenda items because they don't have time to move on to the more popular (or less unpopular, as it might be) items on the agenda. Force the less extremist republicans to come into conflict with the more extremist republicans. Make it so the news is constantly covering their horribly unpopular agenda for six months straight because they need to maneuver so many little details to avoid losing three votes in the house while fitting it within the rules of reconciliation. Force them to change the rules on filibusters.
Agendas don't become controversial automatically. They need to be opposed, they need to be fought, they need to be something that the public hears about constantly for months and start viewing in a critical angle regardless of their ideology.
This is especially important for democrats. One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can. The absolute worst thing we could do is avoid fighting to our fullest ability.
I'd concur if the issue was more broady amalagous and unpopular, like healthcare or gutting environmental/safety/labor regs. But what makes immigration different is the GOP position IS NOT unpopular with the electorate. So having it be in the news for the next 6 months when the GOP could be all John Wayne on the border if not for those bleeding heart Democrats, doesn't hurt the GOP . . it hurts Democrats.
"Repeal and replace" was popular (or at least near neutral) until republicans started to try and enact it, until it was in the news for months and months and more people had to mentally digest the actual consequences of it.
Same deal here.
I'm pretty sure repealing the ACA was never popular post-2010 midterms. By 2016 most polling showed the public basically 50/50 on the law
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/12/08/4-views-of-the-aca-medicare-and-the-nations-economy/
and it got more popular once Trump became President, not less.
https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-june-2017-aca-replacement-plan-and-medicaid/
Trump also didn't make ACA repeal a central part of his 2016 campaign; it was part of his campaign plank but there was no specific plan outlined. Meanwhile he's been saying clearly that once in office he will initiate mass deportations and enact massive tariffs.
That Obamacare became more popular after Trump's election is kind of the point... it was something where we fought. Democrats didn't come together and conclude that ACA repeal would be so disastrous that republicans would eat shit for it and that we should let them do so. No, we stymied them every step of the way. The end result being great for us: republicans took the damage of unpopular policy and they failed to implement the policy at the same time. Which, even if you don't give a shit on humanitarian grounds, is still a great political win for us — it saved us the political costs of going through the process to pass it back into law, or something similar to it!
This!
"One of our biggest disadvantages with voters, and especially our base, is people think the party isn't willing to fight. So many people think we're weak or that we're also fully bought by corporations. It is absolutely critical that we fight as hard and loudly as we can."
President Biden could and should have used the bully pulpit to name and shame the corporations that obscenely increased their profit margins during the pandemic, and in its aftermath.
And I do think it would have benefited Kamala Harris to more clearly and specifically attack corporate greedflation. That includes highlighting the difference in the rate increases of CEO wages & benefits and that of ordinary workers.
Also, just look at the pent-up rage that was released and aimed at insurance companies in the aftermath of the killing of that CEO. That rage could have been tapped during the presidential campaign!
This can be extended out to a broader point, I think.
It's hard to deny that we're in a populist era for politics, one that dems at the top are not leaning into sufficiently. Republicans are working with it by painting the weak and powerless as voters' enemies, punching down to get the electorate on board with them.
We have a wide opening to punch up, to attack the rich and the powerful, and paint them as our foil. We should take it and use it.
I would be careful what you wish for with deportations. The most likely scenario is that Trump proceeds with a controlled number of deportations, declares victory, and then proclaims the problem is solved. If he does, the economic fallout will be minimal and the deportations will be incredibly popular. Unless and until real hardships are felt by consumers because of deportations, Trump will be on the right side of popular opinion by proceeding with them.
We need to be a Greek chorus on this. Point out this is X-thousand out of Y-million, and fuel their own coalition's inherent tensions.
Don't let them avoid copping to their lies, no matter how blatantly obvious they are to anyone with their eyes open.
I honestly don't know what else to do. Just in no way repeating the "resistance" posture from 2017. That just f-cked us over even worse, in the medium-to-long term.
Well that's the whole question at the end of the day-does Trump believe in this issue strongly enough to go the Stephen Miller/Bannon route, or does he do basically a slightly harsher repeat of his prior Administration policy and not stick up the middle finger at the Business Roundtable groups that he both loathes and wishes he was a part of?
IMO tariffs are likelier to harm consumers more quickly and obviously than deportations, and it feels (to me at least) like protectionism bordering on mercantilism is the one thing Trump actually truly in his bones believes in policy wise
It's also something we have a harder time stopping as I understand things. There's more leeway for the executive to impose tariffs regardless of congress' input. Deportations and other matters generally at least require funding apportionment even when the executive branch generally can do them unilaterally.
I don’t have a problem with tariffs depending on the facts and if they’re done for economic reasons. Democrats worshipping at the altar of “free trade”/protecting capital over labor is a big reason why the party has slipped in the Midwest.
Inflation was the number #1 issue this year, and tariffs supercharge that while not providing any corresponding surge for domestic mx. The Biden Administration did more to onshore U.S. manufacturing than any presidency since WWII and voters showed they DGAF.
Voters DGAF because they were largely ignorant. Why were they ignorant? Because Team Biden failed to tout their accomplishments as loudly as Trump would have done – and, sadly, not even as loudly as Trump and the right-wing ecosphere spouted their lies and constant negativity.
You might argue that the news media should have done its job regardless but, sadly, that is not the infotainment reality we live in.
Or did he tout them and nobody cared?
Tout? Yes. Tout loudly? No. Tout as loudly as Trump? Definitely not!
The point being you can tout things as much as you want. If voters don’t agree and/or care though, none of it matters.
I’m probably more favorable to free trade than you are, but I agree on the whole.
That said, Trump’s “25% on Canada and Mexico so I can seem tough lol” isn’t that
Correct. Though I’m surprised unilateral tariff authority is constitutional seeing as it’s a tax and thus within the purview of Congress
The thing is, if Trump does that, his base won't think the problem is solved because they'll still hear Spanish spoken in their towns.
That would be the smart thing for him to do. Ironically if he were to do this the biggest problem he would have is pushback from his base that really believes that all undocumented immigrants should be deported, along with their children and they are willing to suffer economic pain to get this.
He could simply bring deportation figures back up to Obama levels and pass the border act he killed and he’d already be more hawkish than in his first term